Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description carries the full safety disclosure: support can see what the user sees but 'can change nothing,' access auto-expires after 7 days, every view notifies the user, and revoke takes effect immediately. It openly labels the operation as changing account access.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with each clause adding a distinct fact: scope, auto-expiry, read-only, notifications, immediate revoke, user permission, and when to offer it. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter command tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, the exact effect of each action, and the safety prerequisite. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter semantics. It explains both enum values in detail: action=grant enables 7-day expiring read-only access; action=revoke disables it immediately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise action and resource: 'Grant or revoke the AMZ Vault support team's READ-ONLY view of this account.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the many diagnostic and reporting siblings, while the mention of account_feedback reinforces that it is a separate access-control operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'offer it only when support needs to see a problem first-hand' and notes it is 'usually alongside an account_feedback thread.' It also states a mandatory prerequisite: this 'ALWAYS needs the user's explicit go-ahead.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.